Statement to parliament by the Home Secretary on new terrorist
laws - 20 July 2005

"My letter [to the other parties] out the main items
which the Government believe should be included in the counter-terrorism
Bill. I should stress that these proposals were drawn up before
7 July. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated
in his statement last week, we are discussing with the police
and intelligence agencies whether there might be further powers
that they need in the light of those events and the subsequent
investigation.

The heart of the Bill is the creation of three new offences.
The first of these criminalises acts preparatory to terrorism
in order to ensure that early intervention does not mean that
those responsible, who may be planning very serious terrorist
crimes, should escape prosecution. The new offence will capture
those planning serious acts of terrorism.

The second proposed new offence focuses on indirect incitement
to terrorism. Direct incitement to commit acts of violence is
already a criminal offence. The proposal targets those who, although
not directly inciting, glorify and condone terrorist acts, knowing
full well that the effect on their listeners will be to encourage
them to turn to terrorism. So indirect incitement, when it is
done with the intention of inciting others to commit acts of
terrorismthat is an important qualificationwill become
a criminal offence.

Thirdly, the Bill will deal with the giving and receiving
of terrorist training. Our existing law already criminalises
much activity that could fall within that description, but we
want to close the gaps to make sure that anyone who gives or
receives training in terrorist techniques is covered. Legislating
for those last two offences will enable the UK to ratify the
Council of Europe convention on the prevention of terrorism,
which I very much welcome. The Bill will also make a number of
other amendments to existing legislation, which are set out in
the letter that I have placed in the Library of the House.

I am very pleased to say that when we met on Monday, the right
hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden and the hon. Member for
Winchester indicated that they were, in principle, prepared to
support all these measures. Of course they will want to see,
and contribute to, the detail as it emerges, and I have undertaken
to keep them informed of developments during the summer. I am
grateful to them for their support and hope that we can continue
to proceed by means of consensus. In that spirit, both of them
indicated to me on Monday that they were in favour of the Government
decoupling this legislation from the further parliamentary consideration
of control orders, to which I gave a commitment during the passage
of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, and bringing it forward
for introduction in October. They further indicated to me that
they were in favour of proceeding straight to introduction, without
pre-legislative scrutiny, provided that they could have early
sight of the draft legislation and that the normal parliamentary
procedures and timetable were followed in both Houses.

On that basis, we are proposing to bring forward the legislation
as soon as practicable when the House returns. We propose to
return to the issue of control orders in the spring after we
have the report from the independent reviewer, Lord Carlile.
He is not only the reviewer of the Prevention of Terrorism Act
2005, because he performs a similar function in respect of the
Terrorism Act 2000. He published his most recent report on the
operation of that Act on 26 May and I am grateful to him for
a typically thorough and thoughtful report. Of course his report
was published before the terrible events of 7 July, but he has
since confirmed that his overall conclusions remain. I have today
published the Government's response to his report and placed
copies in the Library. We have given effect to several of his
recommendations and are giving active consideration to others.

In the days and weeks since 7 July, many have raised concerns
about extremists who seek to come to this country to foment terrorism,
or to provoke others to commit terrorist acts. I have reviewed
the Government's powers to exclude such people. The Home Secretary
has powers to exclude individuals on the grounds that their presence
in the UK is not conducive to the public interest. There is no
statutory right of appeal against the exclusion decision, but
of course it can be challenged through judicial review. In addition,
immigration and entry clearance officers have similar powers.
Any exclusion by them would generate a right of appeal. This
power is currently informed by the operation of a warnings index
of named individuals. I have concluded that these powers need
to be applied more widely and systematically both to people before
they come to the UK and when they are here.

In recent decades, for all Home Secretaries, the criteria
for exercising these powers have generally been grounds of national
security, public order or risk to the UK's good relations with
a third country. In going beyond these grounds, we rightly need
to tread very carefully indeed in areas that relate to free speech.
However, in the circumstances that we now face, I have decided
that it is right to broaden the use of these powers to deal with
those who foment terrorism, or seek to provoke others to commit
terrorist acts. To that end, I intend to draw up a list of unacceptable
behaviours that fall within those powersfor example, preaching,
running websites or writing articles that are intended to foment
or provoke terrorism. The list will be indicative rather than
exhaustive and we will consult on it, because it is important
that we work with the communities.

Where there are grounds for considering that a person has
been engaged in such activities, or will do so in the UK, exclusion
will be considered. I have asked my officials together with the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the intelligence agencies
to establish a full database of individuals around the world
who have demonstrated the relevant behaviours. That database
will be available to entry clearance and immigration officers
and will be added to the current warnings index. I should make
it clear that entry on that index does not necessarily mean exclusion,
but in all cases it will trigger the possibility of a decision
to exclude by Ministers.

In addition to using that list to ensure that those non-conducive
powers are applied more widely and systematically at the point
of entry, the specified unacceptable behaviours will not be permitted
for individuals who have leave to enter or remain in this country.
That power arises in various categories: for those here temporarily,
for example, as visitors, students or workers, or their dependants
and for those with indefinite leave to remain, any breach will
lead to termination of their leave or deportation; for asylum
seekers, we will, as a general rule, look to detain them and
fast-track their claims; and for refugees, we will consider whether
the behaviours described fall within one of the categories for
exclusion from protection under the 1951 refugee convention.

We have already made it clear in the changes announced on
refugee status earlier this week that any breach by a refugee
of the categories for exclusion will trigger an immediate review
of their status. We are already consulting on changes to the
conditions for leave to enter and remain for ministers of religion,
and we will consider with the faith communities whether further
measures are needed.

I am also urgently seeking agreement with EU and other countries
on the mutual exchange of information on exclusion decisions.
The power of exclusion is necessarily targeted at those outside
the UK. When people who are already in the UK engage in the kind
of behaviour that I have identified and described, it may well
be appropriate to deport them under statutory powers. I will
ensure that a consistent stance is taken in relation to both
deportation and exclusions. In the past, there have been some
successful challenges to proposed deportations under article
3 of the European convention on human rights. For that reason,
we have actively been seeking memorandums of understanding with
a number of Governments to address those legal concerns.

I am pleased to announce today that the Governments of the
United Kingdom and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan have reached
agreement in principle on the provisions of such a memorandum
of understanding, regulating the arrangements by which assurances
regarding the treatment of particular individuals can be sought
prior to their deportation. The formal signing of the memorandum
of understanding will be arranged shortly, and a copy of the
text will be placed in the Library once the signing ceremony
has taken place.

I do not in general intend to comment on the position of particular
individuals. In light of recent public comments, however, the
House may be interested to know that I understand that Sheikh
Yusuf Al Qaradawi is not now planning to visit the UK in the
near future. If he were to seek to do so, I would of course have
to consider whether his presence would be conducive to the public
good. I will follow the approach that I have set out today in
the case of Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed and other individuals
whose names are in the public domain.

I want to conclude by applauding the efforts that the leaders
of the Muslim communities are now making to improve their capacity
to fight extremism and protect young people. Positive proposals
are emerging from a series of meetings between my right hon.
Friend the Prime Minister, myself and others on strengthening
our capacity to fight the destructive and nihilist philosophy
of those who promoted the London bombings.

As I hope that I have demonstrated, there is unity of purpose.
The Government want to work with other parties to ensure that
we have the most effective anti-terrorism legislation on our
statute book. Similarly, we want to work with the Muslim community
to isolate and weaken dangerous extremists. I am grateful to
all engaged in that important work, which I hope commands Parliament's
support."

Statewatch does not have a corporate
view, nor does it seek to create one, the views expressed are
those of the author. Statewatch is not responsible for the content
of external websites and inclusion of a link does not constitute
an endorsement.